Basically, a GTO strategy can be constructed for any bet size that works just as well as a GTO strategy for any other bet size. So there's no reason to look into overly complex approaches where you try to figure out which bet sizes perform best in which situations, or to even try and work with multiple bet sizes. If playing perfectly, any bet size will work, and there's no need to invest too much time or energy here. Quality of play is what is most important.


Yes, it's important that a bet is included in the list of available options.
It just doesn't seem to matter too much what size that bet is.

The above applies to GTO strategies versus perfect players. However, in practical play, people (particularly poorer players) may react sub-optimally to certain bet sizings. So in practice it makes perfect sense to adapt your bet sizing to your opponent's leaks. However, as the quality of opponent increases, the added value of bet sizing will likely decrease; it's the quality of play what is most important. If having to choose between high quality of play and low quality of bet sizing, or vice versa, then the former will outperform the latter by a wide margin.

Hi scylla, gto+ is great program, but it will be greatfull if program will have more filters of combos, and also a posibility to create custom filters like in flopzillapro.

Fascinating, many thanks for your insight!

Would be cool also if you could use the bet amount and check ranges from GTO+ and be able to direct import them into Flopzilla to see the hotness matrix and how GTO+ builds its betting range/checking range.

Ok, I will see what I can do for later releases.

You can export any spot in a tree to FlopzillaPro with "FlopzillaPro->Export to FlopzillaPro" or Ctrl+F.

Hello - I have a lot of questions. I hope you can help me with them. I will also say that I have a study group of 4 or 5 other players and we are debating on using PIO or CREV (I'm the only who uses CREV and another friend uses PIO and he says I'm using the wrong tools - but my coach said CREV is very powerful if you know how to use it) - Just adding that bit in there as myself and my study friends are unsure about which to use and hoping you could elaborate on some of my questions to help us decide.



I see there is a tree wizard. I just manually set up a tree by adding every possible option of bet/check/call/raise etc with multiple bet sizings but then remembered again about the tree wizard.

Is it possible to make tree wizard use multiple bet sizings? I want to have 1/3 pot, 1/2 pot and 3/4 pot.

If I do this for flop cbet, then of course turn and river pot sizes will be different too.

So what would you recommend is best way to set this up? Should I solve for just flop situation and then try to create a new tree that starts on the turn with new ranges?

Also I wish to ask - if you set up exactly the same ranges with exactly the same bet size options into both CREV equilibrium solver (not GTO+) and also PIO, and compare the outputs, is it possible to have relatively significant differences but both outputs are still optimal/GTO/accurate?

Because I set up a tree where I gave the worst flop possible (JT8) for a SB 3b range and UTG defend range where UTG has a lot of 88/99/TT/JJ and 98s+ and where SB has AQ+ and QQ+ with not much suited connectors and CREV still says SB should cbet 100% of range where as PIO has SB checking about 25% of their combo's.

CREV also suggested that UTG should raise at a higher frequency when SB cbets a larger size which seems counter intuitive and PIO suggested the opposite, where when SB bets bigger size then UTG should raise flop less often. I know it's a bit difficult to answer that last question bc I haven't provided much details but yeah, I'll be able to post a bit more details I think if you can't follow my lack of specificity.

Another Question has to do with your comments about bet sizings not being important in a GTO solution. This naturally confuses me a bit. I would assume it would be better to run the exploitative solver if we can guess to any degree of certainty how villain will react to different situations.

Because you always see "pro videos" where they set up like 4 different PIO bet sizes and test to see which one PIO "likes more" and then they "use that sizing for their entire range" - So if bet sizing does not matter much in a GTO solution, why would PIO pick one size preferably over another?

Also if I wanted to do pretty intense solver work, would you say basic CREV functions will suffice or would you recommend GTO+ - and what really does GTO+ offer that basic CREV does not?

Ok so here is I think a question I just asked but rephrased a bit differently.

My friend and i are discussing bet sizings and why/when PIO chooses one over another.

Are you basically saying that if PIO prefers 3/4 cb size with 75% of the range and 1/3 cbet size 25% of the range, then if we tell PIO to f off and just use the 1/3 sizing that the EV difference will be completely negligible?

Or to state it another way - If we just choose one sizing every time to test a GTO solution (let's say we like 1/3 cbets) then we can just save study time for the rest of time and just run GTO solutions using 1/3 cbet every time and not worry about all the other possible sizings?

So it seems being able to set up multiple sizings is very helpful in a tree I can re use many times so I can test how Hero should react when villain uses different sizings on different textures. I think this would be the first thing I would love to learn how to do.

One more question - If we set up the exact same situation in basic CREV and GTO+ , would there be any differences in the output or does GTO+ use the same "engine" or w/e as basic CREV?

I would recommend GTO+ for this. It's to a large extent CREV2, although it's more focussed towards GTO research. It also covers most of what pio can do, as well as offering several additional features, such as tiny savefiles, the ability to create databases of trees (which are relatively small, due to the ability to compress savefiles), internal analysis tools and the ability to toggle card removal ON/OFF. Furthermore, contrary to pio GTO+ will always converge to 0%, whereas pio will often hang around 0.05% (this is particularly noticable for turn calcs). When it comes to speed we are comparable to pio; sometimes a bit faster, sometimes a bit slower.


You can use GTO+'s advanced tree builder for this.
It includes multiple bet sizes, and many additional options.


If the trees are exactly the same, then the results will typically be very comparable. The frequencies will match almost exactly, although there may be some differences in exactly which hands are used as bluffs. It's easiest to compare this by using GTO+'s "Basic" tree builder and pio's "Version 1.0" tree builder. In that case, both programs will build an identical tree.



Most likely the trees were different. Trees consist out of hundreds, or even thousands of nodes. When using the "Advanced" tree builders for both programs, the trees will always be a bit different, and the results will be different.


This entire approach doesn't work. All bet sizes perform nearly identical to one another. Typically the difference in performance between two bet sizes is within 1% of each other. Quality of play is far more important. Versus an optimal opponent there's not much to be gained from bet sizing, but far more from playing well within the bet sizes that you've chosen.


You're basically looking at static. If you slightly change ranges, or the tree, or even just solve to a different Nash distance, then different frequencies may be reached. Even if you were to pick the line that the GTO solution least seems to prefer, then the overall EV would at worst be only slightly below the overall EV for the "preferred" line. There's very little to gain here.


I would recommend GTO+. It offers an interface that is specifically geared towards GTO, as well as the ability to create databases, improvements in the GTO algorithm, small savefiles, more tree building options, and several other features. For a sumup check the bullet points that the bottom of this page: www.gtoplus.com

You can just use a single sizing. In GTO, any reasonable bet size will work just as well as any other reasonable bet size. A GTO solver will always manage to find a solution within any betting strategy that performs comparably well to any other betting strategy.

The approach of using multiple bet sizes to see which one is preferred doesn't really work. All bet sizes perform very closely to one another. Any bet size will show nearly exactly the same performance as any other bet size. There's very little to gain in the area of bet sizing that's humanly achievable; what is really important is the quality of play.


GTO+ has had some improvements to its engine so there may be some differences; the engines are not identical.

wow ok that is some good information. Thank you so much.

If I already have CREV, how much would it cost to add on GTO+?

I guess it says $50 for the GTO+ "add on"?



It doesn't really give the option for the $50 add on , how should I go about giving you the money?

For that go here: www.gtoplus.com/upgrade-from-crev

Hi Scylla,

Hope you are well and great work with GTO+!!

Quick question... Are there any plans or would it be possible to implement a Save and Shutdown/Sleep/Hibernate Computer When Complete feature to the software (similar to what PT4 has for Database Management)? I have built a dedicated machine for the software and it will primarily solve databases overnight.

I would prefer not to have the machine running idle for potentially hours wasting energy once processing is complete. I have disabled the Windows Power Management option to sleep after X duration as I suspect that it will intervene mid-solve given there will be no mouse/keyboard input.

Cheers,

Jax

scylla,

I just wanted to write a public thanks for how much of an asset you are to poker players! I haven't played online in awhile and wanted to do some CREV work and I come to find my CREV can be used for GTO+ - how terrific! It is refreshing to hear your voice again in these new video tutorials as I learn my way through the new software. Thanks again for creating such terrific, well supported software, and giving it amazing customer service too.

+1 awesome products and service

Ok, I will see what I can do here.

hello i disabled donkbet for OOP on river but when OOP get to this line:
FLOP
OOP cbet IP call
TURN
OOP check IP bet OOP call
RIVER
OOP have option to donkbet

can you look in this situation please

The option says "Don't donk unless you have shown aggression previously".
I'd have to check the code to see what it says, but OOP's flop bet is probably why OOP is betting on the river.
I can consider changing it for later releases, but for the moment this is most likely why it works like this.

Much appreciated

I ran the 55 flop subset in database mode. Now looking over the report of the flop frequencies in excel, do I need to apply weights to the results?

Can you specify exactly which values you're referring to?
The aggregate frequencies can be calculated by GTO+ itself.
For that, go to the "Aggregate" tab and switch to frequency mode.

Ok why can I not process this? I just want GTO+ to spit out 50 random flops.

You need to click the blue button to add the flops.

Also, for most purposes it'll be better to use one of the included subsets.